Public administration education in Europe

Abstract

The article explores the changing patterns of disciplinary orientation in European public administration (PA) education. The study builds on an earlier research, which defined three distinct clusters of countries, based on their specific PA education tradition. It asks whether countries’ movement away from the Legalist paradigm has continued since then and if yes, what were the factors triggering the shift and towards which cluster: corporate or public. The empirical basis of the article is a small-scale expert survey involving ten European countries. The key finding of the research is that since the early 2000s the geographical scope of Legalism in PA teaching has shrunk further with a number of formerly more Legalist-based countries having moved towards at least one of the two alternative clusters. These changes can be attributed to the demonstration effect of the international PA education field and a shift in actual needs triggered by domestic reforms. However, some countries in the response set – notably, Germany and Hungary – seem to remain largely unaffected by these trends and continue on an overwhelmingly Legalist PA education path.

Public Administration Education in the CEE Countries: How has it Developed during the Recent Decades ?

“…Some studies concentrate on diff erences between PA Education in Europe and the United States (e.g. Hajnal 2003;Hajnal 2015;Matei and Matei 2013), and / or deal with programs across Europe -e.g. Reichard (2017), or Reichard and Schröter (2018) (Reichard 2017 focuses especially on executive academic programs for professionals).…”

“…However, although the research might consider institutional structure (how many programs are delivered or accredited, what is the institutional profi le of an institution off ering the program), it does not consider in more detail the development of PA education in individual countries, although it was already clearly recognized that communist regimes in individual countries were quite diff erent, and diversity among these countries increased greatly aft er 1990 (Meyer-Sahling 2009). Similarly, Hajnal (2015) also emphasized the historically rooted national distinctiveness of PA education.…”

Engaging industry in curriculum design and delivery in public policy teaching: A strategic framework

“…Greenwood and Eggins quote Rhodes (1991: 533) in noting that the ‘real world of public administration has undergone a variety of upheavals…privatisation, the “new public management”, and cutbacks in public expenditure and public sector employment’. New Public Management, moreover, was both a cause and consequence of governments adopting greater market orientations and privatising ownership and provision of services to the private and non-profit sectors (Hajnal, 2015: 96; Robichau et al, 2015: 316). This has led to a blending of practices and norms, with government departments often adopting aspects of the institutional and work logics of the private sector (Knutsen, 2012; Oesch, 2006; Robichau et al, 2015).…”

National Curricula (Standards) in Public Administration (?)

“…Verheijen and Connaughton 1999, Verheijen andNemec 2000). According to Hajnal (2015) throughout the 2000s, comparative research of PA education focused on a number of diff erent dimensions, like the didactical approaches used (Newswander and Newswander 2012;Reichard 2002), the disciplinary composition, orientation and identity of the fi eld (Bouckaert 2008;Cepiku 2011;Hanjal 2003, Hajnal 2004Kickert and Stillman 1999;Kickert 2007;Nemec et al 2012b andReichard 1998). Hajnal identifi es only two studies related to quality assurance and accreditation (Geva-May and Maslove 2007;Reichard 2010); in reality a few more exist, but may be diffi cult to fi nd online (like selected chapters in Jenei and Karoly 2008 or our papers, like Nemec et al 2011;Nemec et al 2012a;Nemec et al 2012b;Nemec et al 2015a andNemec et al 2015b).…”